On 29 August 2012 12:14, Ben Finney <ben+freesoftw...@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> Adrian Colomitchi <acolomit...@gmail.com>
> writes:
>> On Mon, 2012-08-27 at 20:30 +1000, Astrid Nova wrote:
>> > Please have a look at and send on the article linked to below on an
>> > issue that could affect us all catastrophically. The article
>> > supplies a really good argument against what the government is
>> > mooting.
>> "Could affect"? Why the past tense?
> That's not the past tense; the word “could” doesn't tell you whether
> it's past, present or future.
> Rather, “could” in this usage is the subjunctive of “can”. Astrid is
> saying that it's possible, at some point in time, for the issue to
> affect us all catastrophically.
Agreed. The word may could also have been used. Regardless I didn't
read Astrid's sentence as being past tense.

Back on Topic...

>From the Age... Victoria's Privacy Commissioner Anthony Bendall has
spoken out against the proposal stating that it's against the
presumption of innocence that we value and believe in.

In a heated submission to the inquiry, Victoria's acting Privacy
Commissioner Anthony Bendall dubbed the legislation ''characteristic
of a police state'', arguing ''it is premised on the assumption that
all citizens should be monitored''.



Free-software-melb mailing list

Reply via email to